Philwiki:NPOV policy
Philwiki’s goal is to provide accurate explanations of all topics covered. In order to do so, all content must avoid all forms of bias and all points of view. All content must present all objective and demonstrably true facts, unless there is serious contention or debate about a topic. In that case, the article must note that there is discussion. If there are alternative viewpoints, then they should be stated, assuming there is substantial support. Philwiki is objective Philwiki is aiming for the highest accuracy in all of its contents, freely revealing the facts of a subject – aspects that are demonstrably true or agreed on by a wide consensus. Only things that nearly everyone agrees on can be stated as fact. That means that analysis of subjects must not ever say that one side is right; rather, they must objectively write about the different views. To write objectively means to temporarily separate yourself from biases, so you can think only about what everyone would say is true. You do not write opinions, you write about opinions, in the sense that the existence of an opinion is fact. Philwiki presents all sides An article can never pick a side on any issue, because Philwiki is not created by a single person who is trying to prove a point. Philwiki is an encyclopedic collection of information – it is meant to be relied upon to let people decide for themselves and have more intellectual freedom. Because it is meant to let people decide for themselves, it must contain knowledge of what different viewpoints think. Philwiki’s editors cannot totally ignore people’s opinions; in fact Philwiki has an obligation to describe all viewpoints that are notable. The viewpoints of an individual are only notable when they have published or been believed by many other people. That is, large groups and widespread cultural ideas deserve to be explained without bias on the part of the article. In this way, the editor writes about the argument, rather than arguing. To ensure that content does not confuse readers, please preface articles with phrases like “Some argue that…” Philwiki does not allow misrepresentations When a person is inventing or misrepresenting a viewpoint or exaggerating it, then he or she is not representing a belief, they are pushing his own POV. Adding material that does not represent a broad consensus and is specifically aimed at improving or deriding the subject violates the fundamental goal of Philwiki: creating a factual knowledgebase. POV content on Philwiki Insults Content that derides or mocks any person, place, thing, or group is absolutely unacceptable on Philwiki. This not just offensive to people, it is also meaningless and useless. What is the point of criticizing staff or places when there are ample opportunities to do so constructively, elsewhere? An insult just removes all of the constructive criticism and serves only as a sadistic and juvenile attack. It violates both common etiquette and is opposed to many points of the scout law. It harms the mission of Philwiki significantly, making it seem uncontrollable and discouraging good-hearted contributors. One of the common criticisms about the wiki format is that without level heads, it can simply be just an opportunity to write nasty things about whatever the subject may be. Don't prove the critics wrong; Philwiki can become so much. A special case of insult is hate speech, where an individual insults a person based on ethnic, religious, belief, gender, or sexual aspects. There is no reason for this and it violates the fundamental identity of a person on irrational grounds. There is no reason to do this, irrespective of differences, and in most cases, the individual has done nothing to arrive at his or her situation. In all cases insulting content will be considered vandalism and action will be taken. Libel This is probably the worst thing anyone could do. More subtle than simple insults, libel is the willing misrepresentation of facts concerning a person or group of people with an intent to harm. It is not merely an attack on a person's emotions, rather, it is an attack against the honor or reputation of the subject. It is illegal and could subject Philwiki and the user to legal action. Reviews Reviews are extremely helpful to people when they are thoughtfully considered. However, they still only reflect an opinion. Usually, that opinion is only of one person, or at most a handful of people. When enough people feel a certain way, that opinion can be stated objectively as part of the article; when everyone feels that way, that view is objective in and of itself. User pages and bias User pages do not have to be as rigourously NPOV - in fact, they are really a place to reveal information about yourself that is helpful to the other editors. Feel free to express yourself. However, do not turn user pages into personal webpages.